Digital Cameras Change War Photo-Journalism 694
prakslash writes "Back in 1945, it took three days between the time U.S. Marines raised the flag on Iwo Jima and the famous picture of the historic moment was published in all the newspapers. In 2004, it took barely an hour before the explosive photos from an Iraqi prison were seen all over the world. This drives home a defining fact of 21st century - the pervasiveness of digital photography and the speed of the Internet are making it easier to see into dark corners previously out of reach of the mass media. As reported in
recent news, some of the most shocking Iraqi photos were not taken by photo-journalists but by soldiers and government contractors who used a digital camera, a CD burner and an internet connection to zip the photos around the world with an ease that has never existed before."
Real Pictures? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think the pics out of Iraq are re-touched, but the ease and power of photoshop and such is something to keep in mind...
Re:Real Pictures? (Score:4, Informative)
Those soldiers were stupid, like the photographing nanking
First rule of war
DO NOT photograph your warcrimes
Re:Real Pictures? (Score:5, Informative)
Uh... the interesting thing is that the pictures are from this past August. And 3 (or 5?) of the people invovled had already been referred to Article 32 (Court Martial) proceedings as of 10 days ago.
So yes, they only took an hour to go around the world. But it took 8 months for them to make it into the public's eye anyway.
Re:Real Pictures? (Score:5, Informative)
In particular most journalists have been embedded which gives them unprecedented access to military units but at the price that the military has gained massive control of what the journalists do and don't report and when. Since they live with the soldiers they were also showing a severe propensity to see things the soldiers way and not objectively. I'm guessing journalists who aren't embedded are having a real problem moving around Iraq or covering the story. You see very little truly independent coverage by American journalists. Embedding journalists was a stroke of genius by the military propagandists.
Its also a simple fact of life most of the major media outlets have been incredibly reticent to cover controversial aspects of the war until recently for fear they will be branded unpatriotic, and that it will hurt their ratings which will hurt their advertising revenue. They know Fox will launch a broadside at them if they stray away from the party line that all is well in Iraq, and a host of politicians like Tom Delay will accuse them of treacherously undermining our troops in the field.
If you look at the coverage of Vietnam those journalists actually covered the real war in all its gore and ugliness. It caused Vietnam to become extremely unpopular, but mostly because people actually saw what was happening. The Pentagon has gone to great lengths to make Iraq appear to be clean, neat, tidy and heroic, though only by covering up most of the blood and the brutality which only came to light because a private with a conscience made a report they couldn't ignore and someone else with a conscience finally leaked the pictures at great personal risk, just like Daniel Elsberg did with the Pentagon papers during Vietnam. If that person hadn't stuck there neck out to expose this I doubt you would have ever seen the pictures because the were classified and DOD would have buried them, while they court martialed some little fish.
Its a simple fact that since 9/11 the Bush Administration decided to take the gloves off and have been condoning torture in myriad ways but with plausible deniability, by doing it at Guantanamo off shore, by sending prisoners to foreign governments like Syria and Saudi Arabia for torture, and by just looking the other way in Iraq and Afghanistan. The whole point of creating the term "enemy combatants" in place of POW's and in side stepping Geneva convention protections was precisely so that intelligence could be gathered by any means necessary. The soldiers in Iraq are probably being court martialed for being stupid enough to take pictures that destroyed plausible deniability more than for the actual torturing.
Its important to note Cheney and Rumsfeld are experts at hiding brutality by the American military. They are the leading suspects for having buried the investigation of the 101st Airborne's Tiger force that went on a civilian killing spree in central Vietnam. That investigation died in the Nixon administration during Rumsfeld's first stint as Secretary of Defense and while Cheney was Nixon's chief of staff.
Fact is since 9/11 the Bush administration felt they were facing a ruthless enemy and if they wanted to win they had to be equally ruthless. Unfortunately in Iraq, with the surfacing of these pictures, its undermined the only remaining rationale for the war in Iraq, that the U.S. was liberating the Iraqi's from Saddam's brutality when in fact the U.S. is being pretty brutal itself. Its hard for the Bush administration to rant against "Saddam's rape rooms" when proof has surfaced that the rape rooms are still in use today.
Re:Real Pictures? (Score:5, Insightful)
However, the topic's on the Iraqis being tortured by the U.S. military. Although the soldiers in question have 'come to justice' (see above for definition of justice), the U.S. military still 'outsources' a lot of its 'interrogation' of Iraqis to private security firms (AKA mercenaries), who practiced (and still practice) similar if not worse torture, are going around unpunished simply because they're not subject to the same regulations and laws as U.S. military personnel, and therefore are not subject to a court-martial. At worst there would be a civil suit, but then again any plaintiff'd have ot make it past all those high-priced lawyers spinning the facts...
Looks like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld learned an important lesson: privatization of a crime means the accountability is no longer yours! Your consience is clear in the eye of the public. Wake up folks, the largest 'coalition' partner in Iraq is not the U.K., it's mercenaries!
Re:Real Pictures? (Score:5, Interesting)
OK, as a vet, I know of what I speak. I was pretty much a mercenary, in it for the college fund.
Most (not all) people join the Army because they are poor and ignorant. It's a step up. IIRC, the bunch who took the pictures were reservists from West Virginia (I may be wrong). Reservists are not as well trained as regular Army troops.
These people were no different than idiot teenagers who video themselves trashing houses, beating up bums and shooting people with paint guns.
Except the teenagers don't wind up in Leveanworth...
Re:Real Pictures? (Score:3, Insightful)
Kissinger agrees.
"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy." ~ Henry Kissinger
Re:Lets vilify the military and ignore "country" (Score:5, Interesting)
Despite what sheltered individuals such as yourself may believe, the military isn't fundamentally about killing people. The machinery and act of killing people is incidental, and subordinate to its primary aim as a tool by which to absolutely impose by a collective act of will an outcome on people who don't want to accept negotiation or rational argument.
Killing is often necessery, and the tools and preparations and training for killing form a big part of military training. Sometime killing happens inadvertently due to supidity, or carelessness or racism, or maybe because some private has been at that
Members of the military are merely a broad spectrum from the society they are drawn from , and there are many very clever, intelligent , funny, caring human beings in most militaries, all the way through to people who really are at the shallow end of the gene pool, are ethically and morally deficient, and easily suggestible. At the end of the day, regardless of their background, abilities, or motivation for joining, these people have given up some of their freedom and human rights, and an unlimited liability to their society, so people like you have the right to call them sick fucks, and sleep in a warm bed safe at night.
To the survivors of some of the places I and some of my fellow soldiers have been deployed to, when option a) was continuing to be collectively abused and repressed by violent thugs, and option b) was for soldiers to drive them away, clear the roads of landmines, and allow the NGOs to start rebuilding their country, the benefits were far more direct and tangible, than inventing a cure for cancer.
The military is nothing but a tool for a government to use, and if you don't like how your government uses your military, and you have the luxury of living in some form of democracy, take a good hard look at yourself, and the government you elected.
Although there are pertubations, democratic countries generally get the quality of government they ask for.
The arguable inevitability of the subjugation of the nation-state to the multi-national corporation is a whole other argument.
Re:Lets vilify the military and ignore "country" (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a pretty much full time activists, marched in every rally and honetly man, I cried when the troops went it.
But I've also sat and drank with american soldiers visiting my country and you know, for the most part there all pretty good kids (silly buggers on the piss tho, hint to us servicemen reading this: Dont get pissed and start punch ups in foreign ports, the locals HATE it).
I remeber sittign down with a couple of lonely marines after they offered to buy some of us locals some drinks, and I asked about the backgrounds, turns out alot of these guys come from lower class backgrounds, and do basically believe in apple pie, momma and the american way.
Now this isnt a malicious thing. These guys believe there there to A) Get a carreer which AINT pushing shopping trolleys at walmart, B) Do good things for people.
The problem is , the brass at the top taking these guys honest passion for things for whatever the freakin PNAC agenda or conservative 'one true way' is.
But dont hastle private joe bloggs about that man. Hes just doing his job, and chances are , when he steps off that carrier back home he'll be feeling fucked up and angry.
My generation saw what vietnam and the resulting 'spittin on the soldiers' did to our dads generation. we've been beaten around, had absent alcoholic dads, watched the big daddies in our lives turned into emotional messes when we needed them to be strong for us.
Lets not do that to these guys. When they get off feeling all fucked up and angry, buy the brother a beer.. He'll tell you whats *really* going on, and the peace people will be stronger for it.
*NEVER* forget the human costs of politics. Bother the killtoll of war and the headtoll of an angry unfocused oposition.
Which begs the question... (Score:4, Interesting)
Photoshop versus Iwo Jima? (Score:5, Interesting)
And when war photography first came to the fore, during the US Civil War, photography was treated like paintings, and photos were taken after the battles with soldiers set up in posed, contrived positions because of the long exposure time.
Just something to think about. The camera can be remarkable for conveying accurate truths, or for conveying convincing lies.
Re:Photoshop versus Iwo Jima? (Score:5, Informative)
This was just on the History Channel within the past two weeks. Yes, it's a picture of the second team that was sent to the top of the mountain. Their job was to get the original flag back for the officer that donated it for the first raising (the only flag they could find on short notice) and put a bigger flag in its place. Two photographers were assigned to the group, one to take photos and the other to make a movie of the event.
Re:Photoshop versus Iwo Jima? (Score:5, Informative)
The first picture [iwojima.com]. Note the tiny flag, and the pretty bad angle. Not a very cinimatic shot (though, personally, I think the soldier holding the gun in the bottom right gives a feel of danger to the picture, as he appears to be "on guard" and defending the position).
Here is the changing of the flags... [iwojima.com]
The second shot [iwojima.com] that everyone knows very well. Obviously, a very different feel to the picture.
Re:Real Pictures? (Score:3, Informative)
If that's ok, more airbrushing and editing isn't such a stretch.
If they were just worried about showing nudity on the main page, they should at least provide a link to the originals. No, not because I get off on this kind of thing, but for the sake of offering the original unedited facts.
Re:Real Pictures? (Score:4, Insightful)
Assuming (which if I understand the Muslim religion right this is correct) that these people didn't agree to the photo, and also have a prohibition of being seen nude, it is a second wrong to show them without retouching them. Forget about what happened and your concern of seeing it, and consider the rights of the victims. If these photos are available un-retouched, it must be only to those who have a genuine research need to see them, and then only if no other way of getting the information exists.
Re:Real Pictures? (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm... the pictures we're seeing on the news weren't taken three days ago, or a week ago, but months ago:
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040505-03
You know, when the pressure was on to find Saddam. This stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum.
So I'm curious how this pertains to digital photography at all...
Re:Real Pictures? (Score:5, Informative)
It's harder than it looks.
It's a LOT easier to fake these photos just by setting up something convincing. Can't speak for the American ones, but the British gov'ts been criticizing the pics of their alleged abuses. The pics depicted the wrong guns, the wrong trucks, etc. Never mind Photoshop, pictures are just plain decieving.
Re:Real Pictures? (Score:5, Interesting)
In fact, compared to some pictures I've seen out of Vietnam, those pictures are pretty G rated. A guy I know has a truck full of slides that would puke a dog off a gut wagon. Bits and pieces and crispy critters.
Re:Real Pictures? (Score:5, Interesting)
That was a nasty ass war. The VC and NVA did really, really evil shit. So did we.
It's the whole "stare into the abyss" thing.
Re:Real Pictures? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't have resources to scan large numbers of slides, unfortunately. But I can provide Web space.
Liam
Re: Real Pictures? (Score:3, Funny)
Where *DID* you hide that disk?
PKZIP (Score:3, Funny)
Consequence (Score:5, Interesting)
Big time. (Score:5, Insightful)
The complaints didn't have an effect.
The eye witness accounts didn't have an effect.
A few pictures change everything.
Most people have stronger reactions to pictures than they do to printed words. If the military is going to control the reaction, the military is going to ban cameras.
When cameras are outlawed, only outlaws will have cameras.
Re:Big time. (Score:5, Interesting)
How true.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Many people who heard of these "abuses" just shrugged them off anyways but once they saw the pictures it all changed.
It's sad to see those pics but you can also understand it when the iraqis are blowing up humvees everyday with roadside bombs. That same MP who posted pics etc posted one of his hummer after
Re:Big time. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Big time. (Score:4, Informative)
ICRC President Jakob Kellenberger
Meanwhile, abusive governments may assert that journalistic coverage of POW treatment is itself a war crime.
Re:Big time. (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, that was the real problem in that prison: the cameras! If it weren't for those pesky cameras, there would be no crimes, right?
Actually, Rumsfeld said something to this effect. They asked him how such a thing could happen, and his characteristically evasive answer was that the the security precautions need an update when everyone has digital cameras and phones and 21st century stuff. So that's the lesson for the Pentagon: we need to make new rules about cameras in the vicinity of sanctioned torture and rape.
You think I'm being cynical? Look at Rumsfeld's own words from yesterday:
(source [myrtlebeachonline.com])Re:Big time. (Score:4, Interesting)
Here's the quote with more context:Rumsfeld is answering a question pertaining to why he didn't publicly preempt the media by divulging the crimes and the photographs himself rather than delaying their release until after the investigation.
My interpretation is that in hindsight, he wishes he had, but that there were no extant military criminal procedures to do that, even though that would have been helpful in the court of public opinion. In the last paragraph (which you quote), Rumsfeld is summarizing the difficulty of managing traditional military protocol, including investigation (e.g. at the Pentagon) with the importance of US, Iraqi and, indeed, world public relations.
There is certainly a balance which must be struck between military (or even police) action and public divulgence. Consider if it turned out (as it has in many other cases) that the reports or the pictures were fake. Divulging the pictures or the charges prior to an investigation into their veracity can greatly mislead the public. Then again, acknowledging the possibility that they might be true may help.
I do not think it can be concluded that the solution Rumsfeld put forth is to "make new rules about cameras in the vicinity of sanctioned torture and rape". If anything, the context implies that the Senator's and Rumsfeld's solution is to develop procedures that will allow for some public divulgence prior to a completed criminal military investigation.
A sibling poster questioned the "against the law" portion. I suspect Rumsfeld may be referring to the Geneva convention or other military rules of which I am unfamiliar.
Re:Big time. (Score:5, Interesting)
When American soldiers get captured and tortured, beaten or whatever, US press and officials are all over the place shouting "Respect the Geneva convention", while the soldiers the US capture are denied that basic right.
Also, it is strange that it doesn't bother the US public more that there are also employees of private companies responsible for torture and interrogation. Why don't the US just outsource the whole war to some company?
It is disgusting.
Re:Big time. (Score:5, Interesting)
Pictures can't be criticized as being biased (not much anyhow). Pictures can't be called liars. Legitimate pictures can't be disputed as being false (the truth of the matter can be proven quickly).
Words can be spun. People's reports can be biased. Words can be taken out of context.
I don't believe that at all. The pictures looked bad of course, but that was nothing compared to the report that went along with them. The pictures showed troops going over the line, but not as dramatically as the report does. The pictures don't show rape, sodomy, or any other of the serious tortures that took place.
I think most people can understand the use of a little excessive physical force, and all the reports I heard previously never said anything more than that... Reports of "abuse" can be taken so many ways.
The biggest reason pictures are important is because it gives credibility to the words from any source. So, until the pictures came out, the press was incredibly cautious when discussing abuses. Now that they have the pictures, they've finally put all the "words" out in the open.
Re:Big time. (Score:5, Informative)
According to the USA Today, the Red Cross "repeatedly demanded that U.S. officials correct problems in Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison before recent revelations about the abuse of Iraqi inmates by American soldiers." (See article here [usatoday.com])
What complaints?
I'm sure at least some of the prisoners complained.
What eye-witness accounts?
Oh, gee, I don't know, all the other prison guards that were standing by, knowing damn well this was going on, without doing a thing to stop it? And how far up the chain of command did this go, with no one doing anything to stop it?
What change? Remember, the soldiers pictured had already been held over for an Article 32 hearing (an official investigation, kinda-sorta similar to a grand jury in civilian criminal law, only not really) before 60 Minutes made with the shock and awe.
The public now knows about it, which will certainly encourage the military to clean up its act. That's what changed. Further, just because the military started acting on some of the violators does not mean that there weren't more violators out there. Now, with the public knowing and demanding that it stop, more strides will probably be taken to make sure that it does stop (a complete investigation, etc etc).
The pictures changed nothing but public opinion.
You make it sound as if public opinion is irrelevant. Remember, the United States has civilian control over the military. And guess who elects the civilians that have that control? Oh yeah, the public. And guess what 2004 is? An election year. So don't tell me that it was "just" public opinion that changed.
The public opinion shifted from the false position that every Iraqi prisoner was being treated equally and well to the equally false position that every Iraqi prisoner is being hideously tortured.
Bullshit. I don't think anybody thinks that. But do you disagree that even a single prisoner being mistreated is too many?
You've got front-page news of what is, in perspective, a very small event.
Do you understand what's at stake here? We invaded Iraq under the pretense of removing WMD. That has yet to pan out (maybe it will, maybe it won't), and after a while, the justification for the war switched to "at least Saddam is gone, at least the torture chambers have closed, and at least Iraqis will never have to live in fear anymore." Well guess what, the torture chambers are back open again. Do I think what the US has done is as bad as what Saddam did? Probably not, but I'm waiting to find out what these other images are that Rumsfeld talked about yesterday before I make my final decision.
The United States is supposed to be the leader of the free world, the country the rest of the world looks to for morality. And right now we're not being a very good role model. There is already plenty of anti-American sentiment around the world, and we certainly don't need any more fuel on the fire. I, for one, am currently ashamed to be an American, which is something I have NEVER felt before. So don't tell me this is not front page news.
Re:Big time. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's in our blood. We love death. We love to watch it on TV. We love to see on the movies. We love to kill each other. We love to kill others. Hell we can't seem to go five years without declaring war on somebody or another.
Re:Big time. (Score:5, Insightful)
While I generally appreciated your rebuttal, ipfwadm, of the parent's idiotic statements, this bit of yr comment stood out for me. In my experience only Americans believe the rest of the world looks to them as 'the leader of the free world'. It's part of your general delusion. When I hear your leaders talking about 'bringing democracy to the world' I know that they are spouting cynical rhetoric, but I also know that unfortunately a lot of americans will buy it. Most of the world would be really happy if americans gave up this delusion. America, like all countries, has some wonderful ppl, but frankly yr governments fuck up the world no end, and most of us look at U.S. of A. govmnt. machinations with disgust and disbelief.
Re:Big time. (Score:4, Insightful)
Where on earth did you get that from my post? Let alone from the part that you quoted?
And to answer your question, no I was not ok with it. However, (a) that incident occurred after the currently-released photos were taken so it cannot even be argued that the mistreatment of Iraqis was retribution for Fallujah (I don't know that I want to know what atrocities might have been committed as retribution for Fallujah, however), and (b) does the fact that Iraqis mistreated Americans justify American mistreatment of Iraqis? Especially when, as I mentioned in my original post, our now-stated justification for the war was to rid Iraq of tyranny, abuse, and torture?
Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it: "Oh shit, the Iraqis did horrible things to our citizens, that's so terrible... let's go do the same to them!" Isn't it hard to be appalled with someone else's behavior when you do the same thing?
Re:Why didn't Rumseld ban the cameras a year ago? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Why didn't Rumseld ban the cameras a year ago? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you were a neocon, you would think of the world in black and white. You would consider American soldiers to be "the good guys", and thus incapable of doing such things. So the idea of banning cameras would never occur to you.
Zip them.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe someone should "zip" them a copy of the Geneva Convention?
Maybe Bush should "zip" away and sign the Hauge treaty?
You have to wonder who these fucking idiots (Score:4, Insightful)
This is going to totally change the rules, when you have 5 megapixel digital cameras that will easily fit in a BDU jacket pocket and when everyone has one you're going to see a lot of pictures that the Pentagon would rather you didn't, which is probably a good thing.
Re:You have to wonder who these fucking idiots (Score:4, Interesting)
How many times do you do stupid things in pictures that you wouldn't normally do? When someone points the camera at you and you make a stupid face--would you make the stupid face at that person if they weren't taking the picture?
The same thing may have happened here. The abusers likely got caught up in the idea "this is funny! let's pose them THIS way! hahaha... now let's pose them THAT way!" If the cameras weren't there, the abuse still might have happened--but the abusers may have lost interest in it much more quickly--and thus spared some of the prisoners the abuse.
Re:You have to wonder who these fucking idiots (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmm, interesting theory. I wonder if I could walk around on the street and get random girls to flash their boobs for me just 'coz I have a TV camera. I could sell the videos over the 'net or something. Oh, wait...
Re:Here's the report (sans attachments) (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is the nature of the work in which they are trained professionals.
Soldiers are trained to kill.
I can think of no circumstances under which such training would encourage humanity or civic virtue.
People who undergo the psychological conditioning neccesary to kill, maim and obey orders, aquire the ability to dehumanise the "other".
Under the circumstances, systematic torture and brutality would seem to be inevitable.
The 800th Military POLICE Brigade. (Score:5, Informative)
You see, every enlisted soldier has a Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) which is his/her PRIMARY mission. This can range from cook to cop to construction.
Their SECONDARY mission is killing and destruction.
These people failed in their PRIMARY mission.
Re:Here's the report (sans attachments) (Score:4, Informative)
Un-professional
They didn't even think what they were doing was wrong."
Bzzt. Wrong. I'm prior active duty, and currently an activated reservist.
Un-monitored? Big deal. At 19, I was managing over $15 million dollars of assets. Most military personnel KNOW and UNDERSTAND their job and do it without hesitation or prejudice. They are situationally aware and are capable of making distinct decisions. These individuals made the WRONG decision.
Un-professional? EVERY basic military trainee is drilled on the UCMJ (Uniform Code Of Military Justice). There are simple "codes of conduct" you DO NOT subject enemy combatants to. Besides being unlawful, these actions are humiliating, degrading, and outright horrible.
You didn't read the report, did you? (Score:5, Informative)
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4894001/
Let me help you with the hard parts.
"There is abundant evidence in the statements of numerous witnesses that soldiers throughout the 800th MP Brigade were not proficient in their basic MOS skills, particularly regarding internment/resettlement operations."
Get that? They did NOT "KNOW and UNDERSTAND their job". That was in the report.
"Moreover, there is no evidence that the command, although aware of these deficiencies, attempted to correct them in any systemic manner other than ad hoc training by individuals with civilian corrections experience."
Not only didn't they KNOW their job, they thought that having people with CIVILIAN training would compensate for MILITARY training.
"I find that the 800th MP Brigade was not adequately trained for a mission that included operating a prison or penal institution at Abu Ghraib Prison Complex."
Again, they were NOT trained.
"However, I found no evidence that the Command, although aware of this deficiency, ever requested specific corrections training from the Commandant of the Military Police School, the US Army Confinement Facility at Mannheim, Germany, the Provost Marshal General of the Army, or the US Army Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas."
Even though their Chain of Command KNEW they weren't trained, their Chain of Command did NOTHING to fix it (above the company level).
"Almost every witness we interviewed had no familiarity with the provisions of AR 190-8 or FM 3-19.40."
They didn't even KNOW the AR's and FM's appropriate to their mission.
"Numerous witnesses stated that the 800th MP Brigade S-1, MAJ Hinzman and S-4, MAJ Green, were essentially dysfunctional, but that despite numerous complaints, these officers were not replaced."
The word "dysfunctional" applied to officers by a GENERAL in his OFFICIAL report.
Now would you care to tell me what "EVERY basic military trainee is drilled on"?
"Common sense" is not very common. (Score:4, Insightful)
Other officers are described as "dysfunctional".
Which would have been bad enough, but then you have civilian contractors telling the troops to soften up the prisoners and telling them that they're doing a good job at it and that they're getting good information because of the abuses.
Non-existant leadership.
No training on what the limits are.
Asking to help with intelligence operations.
Bush claiming that some prisoners are NOT subject to the Geneva Conventions.
Hostile environment.
No idea when they'll be going home.
So, a few enlisted will burn and the officers will be allowed to retire from service.
I think that their entire chain of command should be doing a few years in Leavenworth.
I can see how some worthless fucks could do what they did. I can see burning said worthless fucks. And the responsibility goes up the chain. Their commander should burn. Their commander's commander should burn.
And Bush needs to shut up about "unlawful enemy combatants" and state that EVERY prisoner is subject to either the US criminal justice system OR the Geneva Conventions.
Re:You have to wonder who these fucking idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently it requires military training to know how to treat a human being fairly. Seems to me she should have learned it when she was a child.
Well, there's the problem, you see. (Score:5, Insightful)
Bush (their Commander in Chief) has SPECIFICALLY stated that some of the people we've captured are NOT covered under the Geneva Conventions, being that they are "unlawful enemy combatants".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A
When you have the people at the very Very VERY top trying to play word games with the rights of prisoners, you don't expect the people at the bottom to behave themselves.
Re:Well, there's the problem, you see. (Score:5, Insightful)
What's more: Am I going to be the only person in this entire fucking slashdot discussion to explicitly bring up the torture at Guatamano Bay and the relative lack of outrage over that? What's with that? Why is it OK to torture one person and not another? Torture is never OK.
Re:You have to wonder who these fucking idiots (Score:4, Informative)
I guess you aren't paying much attention then. Rumsfeld has been all over the news stating that the photos are not only real, but that there are far worse very brutal pictures that have not been publicly released. There are also at least two prisoners who were murdered, with two homicide investigations under way.
And this is a good thing. (Score:4, Insightful)
Because it provides at least a partial answer to "who guards the guards".
A crack-down on possession is almost inevitable, since our society seems to prefer hiding problems over fixing them, but IMO any such crack-down will be lamentable.
Stupid (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: Stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
> Its bad enough US troops were doing this, but why were they even taking pictures of it? How stupid can you get, really...
How about the correlative? (Score:5, Interesting)
If you think this isn't possible, what's changed between now and the alien and sedition act of before?
Wasn't all that fast..... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wasn't all that fast..... (Score:3, Informative)
The question is not as much whether the images exist, it is whether gutless mainstream American media is willing to show it.
January (Score:4, Insightful)
What is being said about the shortening of the photojournalism cycle is still true, I just think this is a case of a bad example.
The date of the pictures is a seemingly minor detail, but I think it's very important. Little innacuracies like this perpetuate broad misunderstandings of important events.
-Matt
Re:January (Score:3, Interesting)
It's only NOW that the media tells us about the breaking story, MONTHS AFTER IT HA
An hour? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:An hour? (Score:5, Insightful)
Arab news organizations have reported extensively on US troops destroying and stealing things in Iraqi homes during search missions. US news also hasn't covered the closings of anti-US publications in Iraq (which set off the current Najaf situation). These are the kinds of stories that the Arab world sees every day. Since most Americans don't see any of that stuff, we have no idea why they're so upset.
-B
Re:An hour? (Score:3, Informative)
Um, no it didn't. I will be charitable (unlike the post I am replying to) and assume you misremembered Bremer's innuendo as if it were factual. What he actually said:
---
Barely an hour? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Barely an hour? (Score:5, Insightful)
The public should be crying for blood.
I was a medic in Desert Storm. I took care of more wounded Iraqis than all American, British, Saudi, and other allied wounded put together. In many cases, the Iraqis I was taking care of has been trying to kill me a few hours before. Now, I'm not saying that no American soldier ever abused an Iraqi prisoner in that war -- but I will say, quite confidently, that there was nothing like the endemic, long-term, systematic abuse that is clearly going on now. Speaking as a veteran, as an American, and as a human being, I am saying that the people who committed this abuse, be they soldiers, civilian intelligence personnel, or civilian contractors, should be put up against a wall and shot.
And if it hadn't been for the release of those pictures, the chance of justice ever being done (except maybe for a few junior enlisted folks who would have been sacrificed while those who gave the orders got away with everything) would have been roughly zero.
Wow, way to boggle a point (Score:3, Insightful)
Meanwhile, many of us see movies weeks before they're even released to theatres and watch TV shows the day after they air via internet exchanges. Just the other day someone promised to post a TV program that had JUST aired "as soon as the encoding is done" which, in this case, was about four hours.
I buy and sell shit via the internet in the blink of an eye. Just the other day I bought another CD from magnatune [magnatune.com] and the only reason it took me a day to get it was because of my hideously slow dialup connection and my insistence on getting the highest practical quality (FLAC).
ALL these examples and the best you can come up with is to mention an "old guard" news source releasing months old photos only AFTER they had "cleared it with washington?" Yeesh.
Positive Effects (Score:3, Insightful)
spin and popular perception (Score:5, Insightful)
So, if you want to put a biblical eye-for-an-eye spin on this, the Fallujah killings in March may have been revenge for the Abu Ghraib abuses, not the other way around as some folks are trying to insinuate.
Re:spin and popular perception (Score:3, Interesting)
What was done in Fallujah was the work of an angry lynch mob of young men in a dusty desert town. At least the mutilation part. Also I think Fallujah has suffered enough for the crime already. 600 Iraqis died and I don't think that mob was 600 strong. Besides many of those 600 were civilians and much of the town itself is now in ruins.
What was done in the prisons was not the work of a few rogue soldiers but a systematic problem with t
Is he armed? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think the guy patrolling the school would be armed.
But mercenaries ARE armed.
"I know it's harder to hate them if you're aware that they're just ordinary guys trying to make a living by, for the most part, just being big and looking intimidating."
The word "goon" comes to mind. Someone hired to physically intimidate someone.
The problem is that they do not fall under US law nor military law. If they sho
Re:Cry me a fucking river. (Score:5, Insightful)
Bush's justification for the war was Iraq's WMD. You'll note that WMD have yet to be found. So, the new justification? Getting rid of Saddam, and closing down the torture chambers and stopping the abuse. Oops, that didn't pan out either.
Are you starting to see why this means something yet?
Full disclosure: I would vote for a slime mold before I would vote for George Bush. I believe he and his henchmen have pulled the wool over the eyes of the American public a few too many times. Also, the fact that he still supports Rumsfeld in this, despite Rumsfeld freely admitting that he withheld knowledge of the prisoner abuse from Bush for months, speaks volumes.
Iraq (Score:5, Interesting)
Could it be because they are in fucking Dubai enjoying all the nice official pictures on those plasma screens?
Or could it be because they are busy sipping drinks at some Hotel in Baghdad?
Or *gasp* could it be becasue they are [in]embedded with coalition forces?
A slippery slope is afoot (Score:4, Interesting)
The coming of age for the net (Score:3, Insightful)
This scandel again demonstrates the increasing proliferation of the net and its significance in modern politics. What we're seeing here is like TV was to the Kennedy-Nixon debates or the Army McCarthy Hearings. This is another phase in the coming of age of the net as a viable medium at least as significant as print and TV, the "old media." And this coming of age will only continue, perhaps until The Next Big Thing in 50 years. These incidents, the Starr Report to the Iraqi Prison Pictures, should serve as a warning to any politician that would overlook the power of the net as a communicative tool. Those who embrace the web, like Kennedy with the TV camera, will flourish. Those who do not, will like Nixon regret they didn't.
Who's holding the spotlight? (Score:5, Informative)
From an article in the Sydney Morning Herald,
"For two weeks before 60 Minutes in America broke the torture story, it obeyed requests from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers not to run it for fear it would harm American interests in Iraq. The network ran it only after learning that other journalists would tell the story if it didn't.
(see http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/08/10839114 61425.html)
In this case, it was relatively "instant" only once the news was ALLOWED to be let out of the bag.Severe brain damage... (Score:5, Insightful)
Auuugh! Cameras are good! It allows the people to check on what their army is really doing. Don't want embarrasing pictures? How about not acting in a way you'd be embarrased to have the world know instead of confiscating cameras?
-- MG
DItto (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't need a course on the Geneva Convention to know what they did was a dirty deed, yet they did it AND LET THEMSELVES BE PHOTOGRAPNED DOING IT.
Tiananmen Square vs Iraq (Score:3, Interesting)
Without equating the two morally, I wonder at the treatment of images leaked from Iraq by modern media and the control entrenched powers have to stifle reporting.
I think it is the supreme court steps that read Eternal Vigilance is the cost of Liberty, Thomas Jefferson. It is frightening that the atmosphere in Amerca today is so in favour of censorship. Without information we cannot be vigelant. We may not like what we see, but sometimes thats the point!
Countermeasures (Score:3, Interesting)
Transparency of Government (Score:3, Insightful)
The latter has something to do with why we're in the current mess.
The same holds for business, considering the opaque bookkeeping behind some recent scandals.
The concepts of Transparency vs Opacity are slightly different terms, but should be familiar to Open Source coders when considering security.
Weblogs change war journalism (not cameras). (Score:5, Informative)
Read how a Baghdad citizen felt about the preparations and during the war Salam Pax - Where is Raed ? [blogspot.com].
Read about an Iraqi girl who lost her job and her hope for the future Riverbend - Baghdad Burning [blogspot.com].
Read what an Iraqi female engineer tells about what's happening in Bagdad now A Family in Baghdad [blogspot.com].
Read what an Iraqi architect has to say Raed in the Middle [blogspot.com].
And in a slightly related note
The Stanford Prison Experiment [prisonexp.org] documents an experiment that had to be aborted after only 6 days, because of abuses.
Well, I wonder why this kind of pseudo news (Score:3, Insightful)
And, I can remember a certain 9/11 2001 where old style cameras were pointed at the WTC and I could see it crashing down in realtime. The images were guaranteed authentic in almost no time.
So, this thread is pure bullshit!
Rumsfeld must resign (Score:5, Insightful)
One day far from now Rumsfeld will be close to meeting his Maker, reflecting on his life. At some point I hope he realizes that there was a reason that the Geneva Convention was created. He might note that it protects our troops from torture, and that torture is an ineffective tool to gain information. He might also, for one moment, actually re-evaluate the decisions he has made over the last few years and ask: why?
But perhaps not, a man who shakes hands with Saddam months after he uses chemical weapons on the Kurds obviously sleeps well at night for some twisted reason.
PR disaster not humanitarian disaster (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, onto the bad side.
Personally, one of the things I find most repellent about the Pentagon's reaction to this issue is that they seem to see this more as a PR disaster then a humanitarian disaster. Of course they are making noises about how terrible it was blah, blah, blah. But Rumsfeld also complained mightily in his recent interview about how annoyed they are they are restricted by "peacetime rules" and hence can't control the dissemation of photos and videos on the web from servicemen and so the photos are getting to the media first without being vetted by the Pentagon.
"We're functioning in a - with peacetime restraints, with legal requirements in a wartime situation, in the information age, where people are running around with digital cameras and taking these unbelievable photographs and then passing them off, against the law, to the media, to our surprise, when they had not even arrived in the Pentagon."
As a result there have been mutterings of increased censorship of servicemen from the Pentagon. Before the photos came out, they tried to suppress the details of the information as much as possible without being able to be accused of doing something illegal eg. press releases released at times they know no-one will be paying attention (an old government trick) with only the barest details (not even the names of the soldiers accused nor any real details of the crimes). Nor was there any attempt to inform Congress at all (even though they were having high level meetings with Congress just a few hours before the photos were published and the Pentagon had known about it for ages as they asked CBS to delay broadcasting them during the fighting at Fallujah). Is it just me, or does *everything* about Iraq seem to shock Congress nowadays? "We didn't know anything!" seems to be their standard response. They are getting to be pretty useless as one of the 3 branches of government. The report about the prison abuses that was leaked to the New Yorker is defined as "Secret" even though the Pentagon admitted there was no real reason for it to be so.
Also the fact that they are trying to pass this off as a few rogue soldiers rather than a systematic problem (which is something their own report and the Red Cross make clear). It almost seems as if the major problem is not that what happened happened, but the fact that the mass media actually found out and are making a big story about it. Now, let's hang some soldiers as scapegoats, make a few noises about "being sorry" and hope it all goes away without us having to make any real changes so we can go back to doing the same thing as before.
Re:Prisoners photos? (Score:5, Informative)
What's more disturbing are the details in this leaked US army report [thememoryhole.org]
Re:Prisoners photos? (Score:3, Informative)
True, but take any pictures not reported by a reasonably credible source with a pinch of salt. There are apparently a lot of pictures circulating that have been culled from a hardcore German porn flick. As you might expect these are already circulating around Usenet and the more sensational and inflamatory websites.
Re:Prisoners photos? (Score:3, Informative)
(self)censorship seems to be rampant; I can't even find the original photos. Why should we trust the media when they won't even provide access to the origianal, undoctored pictures? I mean, that's the main evidence, why not give the public acces to it so they can draw their own conculsions?
Re:Prisoners photos? (Score:3, Informative)
War crimes [aftenposten.no]
Re:Dumb Question (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Dumb Question (Score:5, Insightful)
However, we have to keep in mind that the scope of the problem is very limited to a few people who took part in this whole prison thing.
But the rest of the world has no way of knowing the true scope of this, because the US refuses to let anyone monitor what is going in any of the other prisons (e.g. in Cuba, Afghanistan and others in Iraq). And quite frankly the fact that the US refuses to let anyone monitor what is happening makes it seem extremely likely that this sort of stuff is endemic. If not, then what is the US trying to hid in all those other prisons? Why not let monitors in if they're not committing war crimes in there?
Up until the release of these pics, most of the rest of the world could still give the US the benefit of the doubt, and say well maybe they're not doing anything bad. But with the release of these pics, that is gone, and there is absolutely no reason to take the US's word anymore that they're not committing war crimes everywhere. There is no credibility left, the chances seem pretty slim that this was an isolated incident.
Re:Dumb Question (Score:5, Insightful)
Because this is an Islamic culture in which such sexual humiliations are the legal and moral equivalent of rape. Because it speaks directly to the primal, tribal sexual fear of women exploited so ruthlessly by the Taliban.
If Rumsfeld is right, there are more, thousands more, pictures and videos out there, violent and obscene past all description.
Re:Dumb Question (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems it's always the REMF's who do it.
Re:Answer (Score:5, Insightful)
A few 'soldiers' you may have heard of:
John Kerry
John McCain
George Bush
George Carlin
Prince Charles
George Bush
David Robinson
Charles Rangel
Dwight Eisenhower
Roger Staubach
Henry Fonda
Benny Hill
Steve McQueen
Sean Connery
John Glenn
Werner Heisenberg
Leonard Nimoy
Some people will never understand why someone would join the military. And that's OK, because there are people who will, to protect your right to be innocent.
Re:Answer (Score:5, Informative)
Taguba found [wikipedia.org] that between October and December of 2003 there were numerous instances of "sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses" at Abu Ghraib. Taguba's report listed some of the wrongdoing:
Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet;
Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees;
Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing;
Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time.
Forcing naked male detainees to wear women's underwear;
Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped;
Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them;
Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture;
Writing 'I am a Rapest' (sic) on the leg of a detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked;
Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee's neck and having a female Soldier pose for a picture;
A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee;
Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee;
Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees.
Threatening detainees with a charged 9mm pistol;
Pouring cold water on naked detainees;
Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair;
Threatening male detainees with rape;
Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell;
Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.
Using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.
Re:How many similar images... (Score:5, Insightful)
In 1914, during World War One, troops from both sides celebrated Christmas together by leaving their trenches and walking out into No Man's Land to exchange cigarettes and other luxuries and play friendly, gentlemanly games of football (soccer if you must).
Of course, commanders on both sides soon outlawed the practice, but the mutual respect and honour shown by men sent to kill each other was clear. I don't see that sort of respect nowadays.
One of the most enduring memories I have of the Gulf War were pictures of the "Road of Death", showing literally hundreds of Iraqi tanks, APCs and other vehicles that had been reduced to smoking piles of metal by Allied air power. I thought of all those thousands of Iraqi conscripts, sitting ducks in their retreat from Kuwait, who were roasted alive in their vehicles by Apaches and Warthogs who used them for target practice. Even on the news or in the papers, barely a thought was given to those killed: that's how far we had dehumanised those Iraqi young men.
Just in this last month, the US Army has reduced large portions of Fallujah to rubble in order to defeat a handful of resistors. What started when a protest by a few people was treated heavy-handedly has ended with hundreds of Iraqi dead, many of them innocent civilians (yes, innocent civilians; I don't see infants wielding RPGs), heavy US casualties and, eventually, US withdrawal from the area and a "peace" enforced by one of Saddam Hussein's Generals. Yet how many pictures of the widescale destruction caused by US airstrikes or reports of civilian casualties do we see in the majority of our news media? Virtually none.
Honourable combat to faceless destruction in less than a century. Ain't progress grand?
Bottom line is this: if you train people to kill, you preach the use of "overwhelming force", and you channel all their aggression into smashing any resistance into smithereens, should you really be surprised when your dehumanisation of the enemy is so effective that POWs abuse comes back to bite you on the ass?
Re:How many similar images... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's because in WWI there were clear cut combat lines with both sides adhering somewhat to rules of combat. You didn't have germans hiding in crowds of french women firing at allies or pushing baby carriages full of TNT up to checkpoints. They were able to cut each other slack, each man knowing that the other side was more doing his job than acting out of any personal hatred. In ira
Re:Here's a *real* war crime. (Score:5, Insightful)
And let me see if I've got this straight. Saddam was a brutal ruler for over two decades. He gassed an ethnic minority with gas provided by the US (Reagan was President, Rumsfeld was SecDef) sprayed from US-provided helicopters. Saddam filled the infamous mass graves with Shi'a encouraged to rise up against him by George HW Bush, who left them to die when they heeded him and called on him for aid.
Now, because Saddam brutalized these people, it made it OK for the US troops to do the same thing to them? The general who submitted the report that was later leaked to the New Yorker (Taguba) pointed out that 60% of the people in there were no threat to anyone.
Go spin your wheel of justifications for war in Iraq and let me know what you hit. Remember, WMD is out, and apparently so is liberation, since you don't give a shit about those people.
Re:Here's a *real* war crime. (Score:5, Insightful)
The prisoners shown in the pictures may have committed war crimes. They may have committed criminal offenses. They may be innocent. Until and unless a duly appointed court finds them culpable of specific crimes, they should not be punished. And if a specific person were to be found guilty of such crimes, the US Constitution bars the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment. It is probable, although not certain, that when the Iraqis finally get their country back, their constitution will contain similar prohibitions, if only to impede a future regime's use of torture.
Most of the people at Abu Ghraib are innocent (Score:4, Interesting)
And the abuses aren't confined to Abu Ghraib. They're happening in prisons all over Iraq.
Digital pictures can be submitted. (Score:4, Informative)
1) Print it.
2) Sign it.
3) Date it.
You then submit that to the court. For reference, my information on this comes from the US DOJ CCIPS [usdoj.gov] page. Note that their position on this is similar to how they treat non-digital photographs--that is, they don't insist on the negatives, but they present developed photos to the court. I believe that they cite more case law in there about that so you can read up on it yourself. I'm still digesting lots of 4th ammendment case law from it, myself...
Re:cellphone cameras are doubleplus good (Score:4, Interesting)
CF, smart media and memory sticks are also easy to conceal but unfortunately they aren't quite as sturdy. Camera phones are interesting but it takes time to do an upload.